Main navigation

DKE Leaks 2014: “Suck or Walk”

Out of Amherst’s three fraternities, DKE has been the most vocal in taking the position that its members have been working on various sexual respect initiatives and more generally support women. This is not an entirely truthful statement. In fact, the DKE members speaking out against the fraternity ban have misrepresented their treatment of women to the campus community. While there certainly have been initiatives led by select brothers to support anti-violence campaigns, the fraternity has not changed its official “Pledge Information and Introduction” sheets.*

This evening, AC Voice received an anonymous email containing an alleged copy of this document. We have confirmed with DKE leadership that the document is, in fact, authentic. This collection of “sheets” is a 13-page document that DKE pledges are required to memorize in order to become full DKE members. The preface to the sheets reads: “You cannot possibly pass initiation if you don’t have even this minimal amount of information memorized and you are heartily encouraged to learn more.” The subsequent pages include an extensive history of past DKE presidents (called “beta”s), other notable members, the history of the fraternity, and various DKE laws.

We have included “highlights” from the sheets below, but you may read the document in full here. Please note also that we chose to redact the names of the current Amherst DKE brothers to protect their privacy.

A few sections particularly worthy of note with regard to DKE’s treatment of women (for those of you not inclined to read the entire 13 pages):

Number 18: Moore’s Requirement
Suck or walk.

Number 19: DMO’s Law
See some trash, pick it up.

Number 29: Nihira’s Postulate
If you can’t be with the one you love, take the bus to Smith.

Number 30: Booboo’s Addendum
Or stay at Amherst and ride the hein train.

Number 36: Seelbach’s Defense
I was blacked out.

Editor’s note: “hein” is short for heinous, or heinously unattractive women.

We provide minimal commentary on these “rules” in the interest of leaving this space open for discussion. While we have included the most glaring examples of misogyny above, we encourage you to review the document in its entirety and reach your own conclusions.

I don’t think so. I am not a member of the fraternity (and they should feel free to correct me), but I have been told that this “bystander training” some DKE brothers have been bragging about was not given to them by someone actually certified to provide bystander training.

If bystander training was provided by Peer Advocates of Sexual Respect, it was not done in their official capacity. The PAs, like all campus groups, are explicitly banned from providing programming specifically for fraternities.

I did the bystander training as a favor to DKE in part because there was a worry that someone who was a PA or a SHE would not be able to do the training because they were paid employees of the college. I had done trainings before off-campus (for several local and regional conferences) and I was in consultation with an Amherst administrator in planning the DKE training.

To the second anon, you are probably right that the present members do not endorse the misogyny reflected by that rule, which is likely a vestige from an earlier era, but it is troubling that current member have not removed them. It may indicate that they care more about reverence to the fraternity’s “traditions” than combating misogyny. It is really hard to defend the continued inclusion of that rule in DKE’s pledging document.

In response to the comment below me, you are incredibly rude and cowardly to call out individual names that “need to be fired” without even providing your own. If you’re going to say something like that, then you need to at least own up to your comments and reveal yourself.

Saying ‘x and y should be fired’ is as much of an ad hominem attack as ‘Suzanne Coffey should be fired’. We can’t hold the administration to high standards if we can’t even talk about the conduct of student employees (that are in charge of some sexual assault programming!).

To the bravely anonymous person calling me to be fired: DKE does not define who I am. I hope you can understand that Amherst DKE is defined by its current brothers, not vice versa.

I have the utmost respect for all people– men, women, etc, and share these beliefs with the Amherst DKE chapter. I strongly believe that if you have ever spoken to me on a personal level, you would agree. Since we clearly have never spoken, I really do understand how you can attack me based on fraternity stereotypes and AC voice sensationalist headlines. While I wholeheartedly agree that some of these outdated laws deserved to be changed, I’m surprised you think my association with one organization entirely undermines the good of my work in another.

Let’s put this into perspective: Like Sigma DKE, Amherst College has some questionable history– I think we all agree on this. If someone from another college were to attack your character and merits as a person because of your association with Amherst College, would you agree with them? Maybe, but I’d still bet you would stand your ground.

Believe it or not, our fault in not deleting the laws lies much more in laziness of the brothers than deep-seated misogynist beliefs. Again, I am absolutely guilty for not having spoken up against the faults of the sheets and fully understand that, but your request is extreme for someone who doesn’t know who I am as an individual. I hope we can cross paths before either of us graduates so we can engage in some sort of meaningful discussion instead of fight each other in the AC voice comment section.

I don’t know you well, but we have spoken several times and eaten meals together in Val. I know the other SHE somewhat better. That the laws were kept in out of laziness doesn’t help you in my opinion. To do your job, you need to be someone women and survivors would be comfortable talking to and being complacent in something like this disqualifies both of you.

They’re not “laws.” They don’t govern or prescribe behavior. They’re inside references and (gasp, sometimes crude) jokes about fraternity history, taken completely out of context. Please understand that this AC Voice post is biased screed. Specifically:

1) The very first paragraph of the sheets is about tolerance and respect, the founding principles of the fraternity setting the context for the subsequent information in the document. Funny how that information was not singled out as a “highlight.”
2) 98% of the sheets are about fraternity history: other chapters, accomplished former members, the process by which it was founded, and anecdotal incidents. The “context” of the numbered entries in the sheets is not to prescribe laws or establish uniform opinion amongst all brothers (which this article and some commenters allege), but to encourage prospective members to learn as much as they can about the history of the organization they’re seeking to join. Warts and all.
3) The authors don’t have access to the context of instances where the numbered entries actually DO inform the attitudes of some brothers. As an example described elsewhere in these comments, when something like Seelbach’s Defense is invoked in conversation, it’s always as a response to a weak excuse for unacceptable behavior.

I could go on, but I’ve been following this discussion and I’ll chime in with a concluding reflection. When I was at Amherst, I was in constant awe of how many smart people I was surrounded by, but I was also disappointed in how milquetoast, hyper-sensitive, and uncultivated so many of my fellow students were. The people I associated with – members and non-members of fraternities – were people that had perspective, self-confidence, and thick enough skin to recognize an off-color joke without getting offended. It’s apparent that there are still plenty of students and alumni alike who are wound up in a self-aggrandizing cocoon of empty activism and hypocritical PC sensibilities. I miss my friends and space we created for ourselves at AC, but good God, I don’t miss the Valley.

As a female at Amherst, I can attest to the fact that sexist comments like the ones above are made by most men at this campus. While they are certainly reprehensible, those remarks are not anything individual to DKE or any other fraternity.

It should be clarified that “Suck or Walk” refers to an incident from the 1980s, when the College had required DKE to go coed. When women tried to join the fraternity, they were told their options were to “suck or walk,” i.e. give members of DKE blow jobs or drop out of the pledge process. Just some context for that.

Actual Context–
As someone in the DKE house at the end of the 70’s and early 80’s, who heard about the ‘suck or walk’ episode within hours, not decades of the occasion, two comments:

1) Outside of Law, and Debate Team, never defend the indefensible, and I won’t. However, Amherst has enough actual student-life issues at the moment, and any fictionalized accounts of years past will not be helpful to the college going forward.

2) The so-called ‘suck or walk’ moment was a farce– a brief part of a more elaborate interstate fraternity hazing road-trip. Recognized by a carful of people as a put-on, no true ultimatum or shakedown occurred. Back at the house, there was much discussion between brothers and sisters afterward, and even in those paleolithic times, it was acknowledged that any hint of sexual intimidation, however nonsensical, would be forbidden in this new coed era. The first Amherst women had only recently graduated, and a progressive DKE house had voted itself coed at the cost of a number of objecting members, and expulsion from the international organization. As for sexual embarassment, going back at least through the early 1970’s, the men all had experienced a campy theatrical bonfire initiation ritual on their knees, which culminated in an overwhelming sense of comic relief as it suddenly became clear that there would be no close relations with the sheep standing before them, on loan annually from the UMass Animal Husbandry department. ‘Suck or Walk’ stands mostly as a reflection on the difficulty of attempting to integrate sophomoric fraternity traditions with a new class of sophisticated women, not evidence of a truly oppressive ‘bro’ culture that did not exist in that particular place and time.

Maybe find a happy medium in which you can still have the benefits of being in a fraternity while including both men and women. Those “rules” in the document are clearly jokes (presently) as they were sexist remarks left over from decades past where comments like those were actually pretty much accepted (not to say they were right). I know from experience that the DKE guys actually don’t outwardly treat women like this, but maybe reforming the system by making some kind of co-ed “social houses” would make jokes like these obsolete.

That would be perfect!! These jokes are so funny! I would love to be part of a social house that categorized me as a member of the hein train and reenforced the notion that giving women the option of sucking or walking was not in any capacity misogynistic!

I have to protest my article being invoked to support the option of DKE opening itself up to women members. I explicitly stated that opening up existing fraternities wouldn’t work (as it clearly didn’t in the past; this leaked document makes that 100% clear). It would have to be a new organization FREE of these misogynistic traditions, that would be built off a FOUNDATION of including women. The fact that no one even thought to remove these entries just blows my mind. You know who else invokes the rhetoric of “tradition” to excuse preserving harmful, problematic bits of history? Southerners in support of the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.

Saying “oh we’re not connected to that culture any more” can’t possibly be true, because its on your damn sheets. History and context people! A top down solution does nothing; it would have to be a ground-up overhaul of the current system. I personally heard DKE guys saying “find trash, pick it up” all the time, and giggling to each other. Never knew what it meant until now, and it just breaks my heart.

It doesn’t matter that these repulsive, deeply saddening entries are jokes. In fact, that makes them even worse, because it masks the sexism under the faux-innocent guise of “we were just kidding.” It allows them to get away with it.

I actually think it’s pretty plausible that the “find trash, pick it up” law, whatever its origin, is now used to refer to picking up garbage around the chapter house. Either way, the document provides no more context for it than when you heard DKE guys say it in Val — not really sure why you’re convinced you know what it means now if you didn’t then.

The “hein train” and “suck or walk” entries, on the other hand, are not similarly explainable.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/21/us/amherst-students-hold-sit-in.html
For some of that, please see the above link to a 1984 NY Times article on the original banishment of fraternities. According to the article, there were eight “coeducational and nonselective fraternities” that collectively had 800 members out of a student body of 1,500. About a third of the members were women. If correct, that’s 270 female fraternity members at a college with fewer women than it has now. The overwhelmingly male faculty voted overwhelmingly to abolish fraternities after outlining concerns over “vandalism, anti-intellectual behavior and sexism.” The overwhelmingly male board of trustees followed suit. Clearly there were instances of sexism in the fraternities circa 1984, but did the faculty and trustees need to abolish the fraternities to protect the hundreds of women who were members? Vandalism may have referred to the propensity of fraternity members to trash their own houses; if so, the college addressed this problem by asserting its ownership rights over the fraternity houses and converting them into dorms. The fraternities were probably guilty of some anti-intellectual behavior, although that’s sort of a vague charge. Arguably, the failure of the Board and the Administration to engage in any meaningful discourse on the issue of fraternities is anti-intellectual. The best argument that the Board can make is the conclusory one that “the original decision to ban fraternities was sound and that decision remains valid: The College is better off without, than it would be with, a fraternity system.” Although the trustees relied almost exclusively on the “sound” 1984 decision, they failed to attach that decision to their report. Does anyone have a link to the 1984 report? I haven’t been able to find it.

On the assertion that opening up fraternities to women wouldn’t work as it clearly didn’t in the past, I would say that it seemed to be working in 1984, given the number of women members in 1984 and the apparent popularity of the fraternity system among the substantial majority of students. Ultimately, it didn’t work only because the trustees would not permit it to work. I also don’t agree that dismantling the fraternities and starting from scratch is preferable to reforming them. Going back even further into Amherst history, Phi Kappa Psi (which became the Charles Drew House inn 1977) was the first Amherst fraternity to admit a black member in 1948. The Phi Kappa Psi national organization responded by expelling its Amherst chapter. While this is an inspiring story, it highlights that prior to 1948 every Amherst fraternity, including Phi Kappa Psi, was racist. While racism in Amherst fraternities persisted beyond 1948 and may continue to persist to some degree, it seems undeniable that significant progress has been made within the fraternity system to the extent it has been allowed to exist.

It’s an interesting read, particularly because the report seems to primarily focus on fraternities as a residential system, and many of its findings only make sense in the context of fraternities as a physical presence on campus.

This makes the current Trustee’s decision — relying almost entirely on the 1984 report with no in depth analysis of the far different situation existing today — even more troubling.

“While they are certainly reprehensible, those remarks are not anything individual to DKE or any other fraternity.”

But I think the problem is that these comments appear in DKE’s freaking handbook. Saying those comments in passing is disgusting, but writing them down, distributing them, and forcing the impressionable young men of a social organization (that claims to value sexual respect…) to memorize them is worse. It’s not a joke, and its not a matter of tradition. If DKE was truly interested in teaching the importance of respecting women to their pledges, they could’ve removed these sections.

This proves that the rituals of fraternities DO in fact perpetuate a culture of disrespect towards women, even though members claim otherwise.

I understand that these “rules” are probably leftover from previous eras in which such blatant misogyny was acceptable. But, in my opinion, the fact that the current members of DKE have not removed them does call into question their commitment to opposing rape culture, and misogyny more generally, that they have been touting. If DKE would like to claim that it is no longer the misogynist institution that it once was, a good place to start would probably be for it to disavow and explicit reject this history’s presence in its fundamental document. Until this happens at the very least, it will be hard to believe its claims that DKE has changed and bucks to national and historical trend of misogyny in fraternities.

Exactly! “Suck or walk” is only a suggestion! Nothing wrong with suggesting to girls in the defining document of your organization that they should blow you if they want to hang out with you! Liberal witch hunt!!!

Oh please – one sentence in an exhaustively long document, confirmed by someone on the AC Voice staff as being a relic of the 1980s, is now the rallying point for the opposition? I’m no champion of Greek life, but has the tide turned so heavily against people who are pro-banishment that they now have to resort to sarcasm and mis-contextualized quotes to get their point across? This whole thing strikes me as desperate.

I was quite happy for a moment that Amherst spent a few days immersed in constructive dialogue. I guess nothing lasts forever.

Sensationalism at its best. The banal institutional preservation of decades-old, “grandfathered-in,” archaic trivialities that have more basis in comedy than fact has zero impact on the DKEs ethos as an institution.

As members of Amherst’s chapter of DKE, we are embarrassed by and sorry for a historical chapter document that includes several old but unacceptable entries, and we apologize for their inclusion. These offensive entries were a few of the many that have been left in for decades without review. Still, given how grossly they contradict the values of our contemporary members, we should have removed them. We hope our fellow students will forgive us and recognize that our actions, not these dated entries, are what truly represent us.

The “laws” in question are not rules by which members of the fraternity abide. For several decades, the outgoing members have been allowed to add entries, often inside references, to the sheets. This has become tradition, and these items have no modern day relevance or governing influence. The fraternity has never exercised editorial control over old entries. No entries have ever been removed.

The eighteenth entry refers to a rumor that we cannot confirm from the early 1980’s, before coed on-campus fraternities were banned at Amherst and years before DKE was newly established under different leadership. Allegedly, a member of the fraternity told one female prospect – not all – that she would have to perform oral sex on him in order to join the fraternity. The story goes that she refused and was admitted into the fraternity. This story is an isolated incident and does not reflect any standard practice at the time. Equally humiliating is the “hein train” comment. It is over two decades old and reflects the opinion of one disgruntled member at the time. Entries eighteen and thirty, like all “laws,” were left in the sheets because no one bothered to remove them.

These dated comments do not reflect our views in any way whatsoever. Moreover, they do not reflect the complete shift in our attitudes and composition today. A brief look at the more recent “laws” reveals inanity, silliness, and even bizarreness – but none of the sexism of the few entries described above. In fact, we have referenced the old “laws” to show new members how much our group has evolved.

But this is not an excuse. In short, we are sorry. We apologize for not having the sense to strike, rather than ignore, those few entries that clearly defy basic decency or respect for our peers. We were wrong to let those entries sit in the sheets, and we apologize to all women of our College and to all those who regard these entries as degrading or triggering. We did not envision these becoming more than old, irrelevant phrases, and that was irresponsible of us. For this, we are sorry.

We are most distressed by the doubt this creates about our institution and the ACVoice assertion that these entries disprove our respect for women and survivors. Much like Amherst College has held on to certain outdated traditions, we failed to remove old entries because of an uncritical deference to the tradition of leaving the sheets intact. These entries do not speak to our actions as individuals or as an organization. We ask that our fellow students judge us by our actions, individual and collective, and not by the words of a few members decades ago that we failed to strike.

You’re right, Amherst College has “held on to certain outdated traditions.” But, while they may have waited too long to change, I think we can agree that letting go of these traditions was the right call (example: coeducation, removing religious affiliation, removing offensive dining ware from val). Now, 30 years too late, Amherst is letting go of another tradition – fraternities. Change in an institution such as Amherst is a long process. Changing this document would have been as simple as pressing the delete button. I’m sure you all knew it was wrong (or at least I hope you did) and the fact that you did nothing about it is just as shameful as being ignorant to the offensive nature of these “laws.”

If the sheets “do not reflect our views in any way whatsoever” and are so “outdated”, why did you send them out to dozens of DKE Alums? The document in question was used (along with student testimonials and demographic information) as further evidence of why alums should sign your petition to reverse the Trustees’ ban.

Let me clarify. An email was sent to dozens of DKE Alumni encouraging them to sign a petition to reverse the Trustees’ ban. This document, along with student testimonials and demographic information, was attached. Nowhere in the email does anyone say that DKE Alums should sign the petition because of the “sheets”.
However, just to reiterate, the document was attached.

Perhaps you heard a rumor and thought it was truth? I actually believed you for a second and went back over all of the frat-related emails with attachments sent out since news of the ban broke. Couldn’t find anything except the statement and resolution by the Trustees. The testimonials and demographic information were not sent as attachments either, as you claim – this information is readily available on the chapter website. In other words, you’re either mistaken or lying.

It defies logic that this document would be used as a way to incentivize people to sign a petition. How would one even affect the other? Truly confused as to why you’re spreading misinformation.

If you read all 13 page of the document (which you should before posting to this thread), you’ll see that the vast majority of it is focussed on the history of the fraternity. Of the 5 quotes taken out of context in the poorly written, extremely biased article above, 2 of them have nothing to do with women, much less misogyny.

“DMO’s Law” is about cleaning the fraternity house out of respect to the brothers living there (If any of you have been to a DKE house, you’ll know this law was rarely enforced). I believe “Seelbach’s Defense” is about breaking a window or knocking over a table in the house and is typically discussed sarcastically as if to say that Seelbach’s Defense is really no defense at all…

As discussed in the comments above, Moore’s Law is a hold over of the 1980’s and I won’t opine on whether is should have been removed by current brothers. What I will say is that I don’t think items have ever been removed from the sheets. While each class can add to them, items typically are not removed to show respect to past classes.

Finally, the Smith and Amherst women reference in #29 and #30 (which are also hold overs from 15 years ago) are negatives for DKE but nothing out of the ordinary for males from Amherst who typically discuss / joke about women from Amherst/Smith/Holyoke regardless of whether they are associated with a fraternity or not (I am not defending it but rather stating this as a fact). If, after the release of DKE’s most private document, these are the only scathing comments which can be pulled out of context and posted, I think you should all conclude that these are actually a pretty good group of guys.

A “public apology” from a group of guys that had nothing to do with the admittedly immature comments written some 30 years ago. Their apology says nothing other than that they acknowledge the comments, written a long time ago, were inappropriate and probably should have been removed awhile ago. It’s akin to apologizing for something that your parents said before you were even born.

Clearly it speaks to nothing of their character or they wouldn’t have come out so quickly and directly apologizing for statements that, again, no one who is currently at Amherst or has been for decades has said.

It’s also a massive distraction from the real issue, which perhaps was the administration’s aim. Did the phrase “suck or walk” written in the 1980s, and presumably in DKE’s sheets since then, contribute in any way to the recent rise in sexual assaults at Amherst? Did it have any impact on the college’s ability to respond?

No, it was a silly inside joke written in the 80s that some frat guys didn’t bother to remove because it had no relevance. Now let’s get back to the real discussion about what should be done about sexual assault on campus.

So “suck or walk” and the stuff about the hein train are both old. Why not, then, redact them from the manual? Or leave them in and change the font to strike through the text so that people can clearly read what it said while seeing that DKE (DEK?) (DICK?) does not agree with or support those statements anymore? Come on guys. You know better than to leave nonsense like that unrepudiated. Also, what idiot was so loose with their pledge materials that they let ACVoice get access to them? Either way, I look forward to having much more access to you all socially now.

I expected to find some really juicy stuff here. Honestly, I’m a little disappointed. Yes, while certain laws may be interpreted in a way that makes them offensive to women like me, I don’t really see anything wrong with this document.

I don’t think there’s much room for interpretation on a number of these laws, as their sexist origins have been confirmed by the fraternity itself. Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “women like me”. All members of the Amherst community, regardless of their gender, should be offended by this document. How can you support the idea of an equitable campus and not have a problem with “suck or walk”?

DKE adds an aphorism to its sheets every year, chosen with input from the most recent graduating class. If you read the last 10 (#43-52), you’ll have more insight into the nature of the men who are in the current iteration of the fraternity. #29-30 would have been added in 1991 and 1992 respectively, and 18 would have been from 1980.

History is history – looking through these aphorisms, it is refreshing to see how far the fraternity has evolved. I’m sure the current brothers feel the same way. I don’t think that revision to this history should have been necessary – those who forget are doomed to repeat. Unless brothers from the past 10 years have been offering membership to women based on fellatio (in which case I’m completely mistaken and they should all be punished), this even further reflects how the culture of Greek life at Amherst has shifted to an overwhelmingly positive one.

I think it’s already pretty clear that the group of men calling themselves DKE on campus today are not the group of men that called themselves DKES in 1980, or 1992. To judge them on this basis is extremely counter-productive.

I’m highly offended by Golosovker’s Theorem. “Pre-periodic points” is clearly racist, and my friend told me they heard a rumor that “algebraic number field” is a reference picking up women in Seeley Mudd.

“The objects of Delta Kappa Epsilon are the Cultivation of General Literature and Social Culture, the Advancement and Encouragement of Intellectual Excellence, the Promotion of Honorable Friendship and Useful Citizenship, the Development of a Spirit of Tolerance and Respect for the Rights and Views of Others, the Maintenance of Gentlemanly Dignity, Self-Respect, and Morality in All Circumstances…”

It seems like this article attacks DKE and its members by taking a few laws completely out of context. That is not to say that I support the few ‘laws’ that the article highlights, but to look at them in isolation, without context and without a proper understanding of their meaning or their significance is unacceptable. Especially in making categorical judgements about the fraternity and its members. In my experience, these few laws have no bearing on how DKE members treat me or other women on campus. I would say the quote above (from the first page of the sheets) is much more representative of DKE, its members and the DKE presence on campus.

“The objects of Delta Kappa Epsilon are the Cultivation of General Literature and Social Culture, the Advancement and Encouragement of Intellectual Excellence, the Promotion of Honorable Friendship and Useful Citizenship, the Development of a Spirit of Tolerance and Respect for the Rights and Views of Others, the Maintenance of Gentlemanly Dignity, Self-Respect, and Morality in All Circumstances…”

This article seems to accomplish nothing more than a baseless attack on DKE and its current members. I admit that I dislike, and certainly do not condone the few laws that the article highlights, but to take these laws in isolation, with no context, no sense of their true meaning, and no sense of their significance is unacceptable. And then for people to make sweeping generalizations and categorical judgements about DKE and its members is ludicrous and deeply troubling. In my experience, the laws that this article highlights completely misrepresent how members of DKE treat me and other women on this campus. If we were to (and I don’t suggest we should) use these sheets as insight into the fraternity, I think the quote above (taken from the first page of the sheets) is most reflective of the mentality, behavior, and presence of DKE on the Amherst campus.

While I respect the anger coming from those who wished DKE had redacted those few “laws” which contain misogynistic commentary, those charges are ridiculous. So is analogizing Amherst’s reversal of the frat tradition to deleting a few words on a document. This document clearly outlines the fraternity’s history–Amherst is not going to just delete the whole frat era from it’s history is it? Just as Amherst has banned frats, it seems to me that DKE brothers have banned those principles from their own lives over the years.

Also, I think its pretty absurd that the headline to this article clearly suggests that the “Suck and Walk” law was a 2014 addition. Good misdirection there. Let’s continue to have this frat conversation out of context.

It is hard to be sympathetic about ACVoice’s misdirection when DKE has been peddling the same stuff by pretending that the care about “student voices” when they are really just trying to preserve their own existence. I am not say that frats should or should not be banned, but it is clear that DKE’s arguments are pretty disingenuous.

If someone had told me that Amherst was a place where free association was stifled and off color jokes were grounds for pariahdom, I would never have applied. DKE should own up to these jokes as part of its history and be confident enough to recognize that they do not reflect the true values of its members.

Oh, I guess you’re the true victim here I guess. Also, I feel that it is telling that so many of the people who have commented to defend DKE have attempted to minimize the obvious, blatant misogyny in that “rule”, in this case by calling it an off-color joke.

No, you’re right, it should definitely be used as a springboard to ensure that DKE is eradicated. None of the positive actions taken by the frats in the last week, none of the willingness to engage in constructive dialogue, and definitely none of the emotional stories of support told by fraternity members are valid because of a misogynist blowjob comment from 30 years ago. If a record number of male freshmen transfer next year because of loneliness, or if a young man ends up in a psych ward because his depression combined with a lack of support led him to take drastic action, at least you can sleep easier at night knowing that there were no antiquated blowjob comments made in the process!

You effectively attributeinflammatory indirect quotes to named individuals, without verification. While your source documents may be genuine, their accuracy is unknown. As electronic journalists, your privacy obligation does not end at the campus, and all names past and present ought to be redacted.

I requested that my name be un-redacted from the sheets, as my law, Bello’s Bellow #52, is reflective of this fraternity’s modern-day agenda. The concept of “a gentleman is never drunk” aims to instill sensibility in our incoming class. In my view, buffoons drink too much in a given night and rely on the help of others to survive, or they possibly become vulnerable to making a poor decision. A gentleman knows his limits and can enjoy the night with decency and respect. I have always taken pride in the way DKE shapes young men into gentlemen. Our process instructs them on honor, dignity, and leadership, and the brothers’ constructive actions on campus are noticeably indicative of the fraternity’s growth over the last 20+ years.

This may be a bit of an extreme example, but it certainly is applicable, so hear me out. The Holocaust happened in Germany as a result of an unjust, sweeping social movement to which the opposition never gained enough momentum until it was too late, and millions were dead. I would argue that the feminist movement of today is not entirely different in principle. It has taken sexual assaults of countless women to make many aware of the issues that still exists in today’s world. But, opposition is rising, reforms are being made, and the countless stories of injustice towards women make up the to-be relics of a societal problem that will hopefully be extinguished in due time.

There are now Holocaust museums across Germany. Does that make the Germans of today Nazis? Absolutely not. In fact, I would argue remembering the Holocaust in all of its evil distances those Germans all the more from Nazism.

So, how could anyone affiliate members of fraternities today with behavior that is now (appropriately) deemed inappropriate, just because that behavior used to exist in the same system? It is simply ridiculous to charge current members, who have clearly made efforts to prove their worth as feminists, as misogynists based on vestiges of the fraternity’s history. Even in writing, remembering a wrongdoing does not make you a perpetrator of that wrongdoing. I am disgusted that some people are ignorant enough to think it does.

I can definitely see both sides of the fraternity argument. I think people who believe in phasing out fraternities/sororities from higher education for larger philosophical reasons have a point. However, I would strongly caution against holding up the so-called “sheets” found here as some type of smoking gun. Like many others, I find some of the content to be offensive. But I think a large part of what rubs me the wrong way about the offensive lines in this document is the fact that they are (irresponsibly, I might add) labeled as “laws” — as if they are in any way meant to be rules, meant to outline some type of ethos or code, or meant to impact members’ behavior or beliefs in any way. This is not the case, and “laws” is an unfortunate misnomer. What they really are are references — inside references to (sometimes apocryphal) stories from each graduating class. And while I have a viscerally negative reaction to seeing “suck or walk” printed on a page, it is inaccurate to regard that or any other line of this text as a rule of the organization. This particular one happens to be a reference to a story that someone in the 1980s made up. Ditto for “hein train,” which is a reference to a story about a guy who became sexually frustrated one night and expressed some ignorant views 25 years ago. These are not really laws or rules at all, just dated references to anecdotes that have come to form an off-color lore surrounding the fraternity’s history. And I’d add that this lore is not glorified by members – most of these anecdotes’ cachet derives from the extent to which they are downright parodies of what “fratty-ness” used to be. No fraternity member from the past decade, much less any current members, would view these with anything other than irony. Nearly every campus group or sports team I’ve encountered – male, female, and co-ed – has some form of passing down stories (often exaggerated) about former members and/or teammates saying and doing embarrassing and sometimes offensive things. So does this fraternity have some out-dated and off-color stories that they reference? Yes. Are these stories any worse than the types of tasteless and exaggerated “college stories” students on campus tell every day? I don’t believe so. Most importantly, does this organization have some type of credo or code that is actually informed by them? No, of course not. To suggest that this document exposes some type of covered-up misogynist credo that fraternities secretly adhere to is downright delusional. I respect the arguments made by those who are against fraternities and sororities for better reasons, but if this is what’s swaying you, get a grip.

“We provide minimal commentary on these “rules” in the interest of leaving this space open for discussion. While we have included the most glaring examples of misogyny above, we encourage you to review the document in its entirety and reach your own conclusions.”

And by “minimal commentary” and “most glaring examples” you mean “with biased and misleading title and text” and “the *only* examples”.

Can we at least take a moment, just a moment, to consider how negatively all of this has and will continue to impact Amherst’s reputation as an awesome school? How are high school students going to take me seriously when I speak to them about my experiences @ Amherst when most will know about all of this shit? smh.. just a thought

Wow sorry that you’re bitter that you personally haven’t made the most out of your experience here. This is a fantastic place. I’d venture to say that if you aren’t happy here you won’t be happy pretty much anywhere. Sharline is right.

I don’t think protecting Amherst’s reputation is the job of current students. I also don’t think it’s the students’ job to “sell” Amherst to high schoolers considering coming here.

Leave that job to the people who get paid to do it: Public Affairs, Admissions, and Advancement.

We students do have a responsibility to each other, though. Now that we’re all here and are socially ingrained at Amherst, we need support systems. We need to collaboratively figure out how to make Amherst a safe and nurturing social space. Online discourse like the one we’re engaging in now is just part of this collaborative effort.

Siraj,
It’s not about selling Amherst to these kids; that is obviously not my job. I simply want to be able to speak openly about everything this school has done for me without having to bring all of this bullshit up. Feel me?

I’m truly disappointed in the AC Voice’s decision to leak these sheets and report on them in the sensationalist way that it has. It really shifts the discussion away from a substantive conversation about what can be done to combat the rise in sexual assaults at Amherst and the administration’s lackluster response and redirects the focus to an off-color joke made by some DKE brothers 30 years ago that no one bothered to remove.(FTR, it was foolish of DKE to not remove these. Glad this was addressed in their apology )

In doing so, AC Voice has reframed the conversation and attempted to make DKE “part of the problem” although in AC Voice’s reporting thus far, I’ve yet to hear of a story of a current DKE member being in any way involved with sexual misconduct or any cases of misogyny. Yet the AC voice has stated that “the DKE members speaking out against the fraternity ban have misrepresented their treatment of women to the campus community”

I wonder if going through the hazing rituals done by the sports teams, acapella groups and other social groups if they would have customs or traditions that some would be offended by. I wonder if a locker room conversation was taped and leaked if there would be anything offensive uttered. Should these groups similarly be banned?

Also, does DKE (or any other underground fraternity) control the social landscape so much that they would be the responsible parties here? Do they have that much power? Does anyone really think that banning the frats will solve the real problem? Would Angie Epifano and other victims feel more supported by the administration now that the ban has been implemented?

While it’s true that DKE’s attempts to overturn the ban may be mostly about self-preservation, it’s also true that the administration’s decision to ban them is also about self-preservation. Preservation of a system that has failed to create a safe environment for its students, failed to adequately provide support for it’s victims, and failed to bring swift justice to the actual perpetrators of sexual misconduct.

Instead their “justice” is brought to a group of students who were able to provide the kind of support that Carlos Bello so eloquently described in his op-ed. That support seems to me more representative of their fraternity than a joke made before any of them were born. And now that the AC Voice has worked to leak the “smoking gun” with DKE’s pledge sheets, the administration can comfortably sit and watch as the students argue amongst themselves about individual statements within them and the merit of fraternities at large; a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with the real issue at hand. It also allows the administration to abdicate themselves of the real work of seriously addressing massive flaws in their own system. It’s deeply troubling that AC Voice has chosen to serve as the administration’s communication arm in this regard, perpetuating their flawed narrative rather than aiming to holding the feet to the fire of the responsible parties.

Would it make more sense to bring these groups into the light rather than banishing them? Would it make sense to make them stakeholders in the cultivation of a safer, more respectful environment? Would it make sense for Amherst to regulate the fraternities to some degree to ensure that they’re behavior and internal charters are consistent with Amherst’s principles?

Conversely, would it make sense for the administration to have a more transparent approach with regard to how it handles sexual assault cases? Would it make sense to implement a zero-tolerance rule that automatically expels students deemed guilty of sexual misconduct and reports them to the local police?

Unfortunately, these conversations are not even being discussed because we’re instead, dissecting one or two phrases in a 13 page document, written decades ago.

This helps no one. Except a weak-willed administration and the perpetrators of sexual violence who will continue to act with impunity.

Picking two or three lines (regardless of their vintage) from a 13-page document and then using them to disparage the institution to which they relate is a fool’s errand.

The 3/5 clause is still in the Constitution, but that’s a lousy reason to loathe the contemporary United States. The Westminster Confession still calls the Pope the antichrist, but that tells you little or nothing about contemporary presbyterianism.

Totally fair game to publish the document. Really silly to hang sweeping conclusions about fraternities on it. This doesn’t move the needle.

My father was a class of 81 graduate and a member of Alpha Delta fraternity, one that went coed before the college asked them to, rather than telling women to suck or blow. Throughout my life he shared stories of the amazing experiences he had with AD, many of which occurred because there were woman in the organization. Sadly, AD did not survive, but we do have plenty of alums of turn to to learn more about how a coed frat can work and actually improve open single sex options. Jessica Hendel’s article should be taken seriously, both by the administration seeking to ban these these organizations entirely and by fraternity members pointing to their group’s inclusiveness. A group that excludes women, no matter who else it includes or supports, is exclusionary by nature.

DKE also voted to go coed before the school required them to and admitted female members. If you read the names of their fraternity presidents (betas) in the published document, you’ll see women listed. To this day, older alumni speak fondly about that era. Jess Hendel’s assumption that women joining fraternities “didn’t work” is incorrect, as I’m sure your dad would confirm.